Frank Casa

And I have seen block lists where most of the stuff is toxic and should be blocked, but then mixed in there are people who pissed off the person maintaining the block list, usually over some petty dispute or the fact that they voted for the wrong guy in the last election. Unfortunately a lot of these distributed block lists wind up becoming the maintainer’s personal weapon against enemies.

How decentralized is Funkwhale? Does everything go through their website, or do you host your own version and you get the music directly from the artists?

This is what I suspected. I can get behind blocking actual Neo Nazis and hate groups, and illegal content, but when it becomes “blocking anyone who disagrees with me” that can easily be abused, especially if the people running the list can’t tell the difference between Nazis, MAGA, Republicans, Centrists, and Libertarians. Or someone who can’t tell the difference between a tankie, a communist, a socialist, a democratic socialist, or an anarchist. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, all of these things are not the same.

People are welcome to block whomever they wish and have the power to curate their own feeds, but when someone else does it, and there is no way to opt out of that, then it becomes censorship or suppression of information.

And someone who is against Nazis might want to read Mien Kamph, not because they agree with Hitler, but because they want to understand the enemy so they can be better equipped to stop Nazis.

Are they blocking illegal content (such as content that promotes violence or issues threats) and content against the terms of service (like hateful, trolling, or disrespectful content)?

Or are they banning people based on their political beliefs or who they voted for, even if their content is not political in any way whatsoever?

And how are they defining alt right? A literal Neo Nazi? Or someone who voted Republican?

Sounds interesting, but how would these currencies be translated into fiat currency (USD, EURO, YEN, etc.)? Because ultimately people need to pay for housing and food with their country’s chosen currency, and that is one of the main reasons why people sell stuff.

This sounds interesting.

*Says a new word. Quickly files a trademark.*

These bullies are going to ruin the fediverse.

@ronflex said:

The problem with left leaning individuals on the internet is we have a lot of drive and conviction behind our ideas which is a good thing, but that should translate into real life activism or doing something that will combat the current political system and promote change. But we are beaten down since that’s basically a total pipe dream, we realize what the problem is and feel powerless to fix it.

In many ways, that’s what they want you to believe: that you have no hope to change things, so most people never try. That leaves the powers-that-be in charge.

But the reality is that people have the power to transform the country, and it does not have to be through the government. For example, if you are socialist or communist, you can establish your own communes, cooperatives, and employee-owned enterprises yourself, and it is totally legal! And, there are plenty of them already in existence.

People like to complain that someone else should fix their country, but the reality is, they can do it themselves, even when they have no political power whatsoever. But it takes hard work, and that is something most people aren’t willing to do.

@Blaze (he/him) I heard someone mention Blacksky a couple of times. I forgot who, but apparently they are trying to set up alternatives for Bluesky on the AT protocol network.

They both use ActivityPub, so the two platforms can communicate with each other. I think it is just a matter of promoting your community.

@BrainInABox Yes they are. And those are the bad kinds we all disapprove of.

There is also a kind called stakeholder capitalism, where all of the stakeholders (employees, vendors, consumers, investors, communities, environment, etc.) are all considered. In some countries, such as the U.S., you can even form a public benefit corporation (PBC) which requires you to, by law, to consider all of the stakeholders and also support a public benefit.

There is also cooperative capitalism, where people can form private cooperatives that are owned by the consumers and/or employees, without centralized control by the government or some central corporation. Basically communism, but without the centralized planning and single party rule.

There are many flavors of capitalism. Some of them are toxic. Some of them are not.

Capitalism may not be prefect, but I don’t like any of the proposed alternatives to capitalism:

Corporatism - I don’t like power and money being centralized into corporations. They get wealthy and everyone else gets poor.

Communism (with centrally controlled economy) - I don’t like power and money being centralized by party leaders and politicians. They have too much power, which results in abuses. Meanwhile, the elites at the top (unofficially) live rich lifestyles at the expense of the workers at the bottom.

Crony Capitalism (our current sociopolitical economic system) - I don’t like the government and corporations colluding against the people. Works like corporatism except the government is helping them.

Laissez-faire Capitalism - Unregulated capitalism leads to abuse, so there needs to be some sort of regulations.

Anarchy - I don’t like the strong ruling over the weak. It results in abuses and arrogance.

Dictator, King, Emperor, Single Party Rule, etc. - I don’t like any system that gives a single person or group of people nearly unlimited power over everyone else. Any political minority gets stepped on. It also means that you may have a benevolent ruler now, but the next ruler may be malicious.

I’d rather see the break up of big business AND big government, and I would love to see more small private voluntary cooperatives and small businesses and small non-profits. Give the power back to the people, not to big business and big government. People should have choices.

I am not sure if there is a name for that.

No, instead of putting them to death, they worked them to death. If they survived, they might get their freedom… and be watched by the KGB for the rest of their lives.

Also, to be fair, you have to look at specific time periods in Soviet and Russian history. Under some leaders, it was a very harsh prison sentence. Under other leaders, it was much worse.

That’s the problem with labels. They often mean different things to different people.

@mortemtyrannis It is pretty simple, really. Don’t screw over other people.

So that means I am against big business, monopolies, unfair trade practices, surveillance capitalism, hoarding wealth, etc.

I am also against big government, corrupt officials, police brutality, law enforcement overreach, government surveillance, tyranny, and dictators.

I think we should have free speech, but at the same time, I don’t think we should allow harassment, doxing, slander, libel, or intimidation.

I think that people should get paid fairly based on what they contribute. Contribute more, get paid more. I also think that there should be a safety net for people who are struggling.

I think that we should have health care reform, but I don’t like the choices that are being presented. Option 1: big business and big health care. Option 2: a government monopoly on health care. There is a middle route where you get rid of both big government and big business in health care. It would require some fundamental changes on how we handle health care, however.

I think we need less big business and less big government, and more small cooperatives, small businesses, and small non-profits. Smaller entities means it is closer to the people and they can chose who they want to deal with. Regardless of whether it is private, non-profit, or government-run, if you only have 5 choices or less, you really don’t have much of a choice at all. Because if you have less than 5 major players, they all start to collude to keep policies and practices in place that benefit them and not the consumers or taxpayers.

I can go on. I may be an independent and politically non-binary, but I do have principles.

I said moderates. This includes left-leaning centrists.

You probably have not talked to moderates much. They don’t like talking about politics because they get attacked by both the left and the right. But they are the swing voters, and they oppose the hate they hear everyday.

@emeralddawn45 It depends on whether we are talking about the hateful far right or conservatives.

Some things frequently talked about by conservatives, classic liberals, and centrists include:

1. Limitations on government power, including how to prevent a politician from becoming a dictator. This includes checks and balances on power, separation of power, and the dynamic between the states and the federal government.

2. Protecting peoples civil rights, including the rights of minorities. Opposing police brutality, protecting free speech, protecting the right of association, protections against illegal search and seizures, etc.

3. The right of people to own firearms, as allowed by the second amendment. This includes minorities and black people, who have the same rights under the Constitution as everyone else.

4. Health care reform. They want health care reform as much as the left does, but they usually disagree on how to reform the health care system. For example, the left usually wants to create a government monopoly, while the right usually wants to break up monopolies and distrusts the government.

5. How to give the power back to the people, since corporations and the elite seem to have taken over this country. Like #4, they agree that things need to change, but often have different ideas on how to change it.

I could go on.

Don’t confuse the hateful right with the moderate centrists and right-leaning voters. Most people have the same concerns the left does, but have a different perspective on it. And most people aren’t hateful. Maybe misinformed, but not hateful.